the judges voted on who performed best, not who is their favourite! Which is why I think they should scrap it because it allows the judges to be biased towards their own or other acts they like even if they are crap.

The sing-off performance should only be one of the factors they take into consideration when making a decision because if a great singer has an off-performance in the sing-off (can happen), but the other act puts on a solid performance, but they are a medicore singer and not too marketable, then it wouldn't be wise to put them through over the other act.

I can't think of any bad choices they've made this season though in the sing-off. They've put the acts with the most potential through.

Yeah...mand that didn't include Misha either!!

They voted on performance so unless there is something serialy wrong with your ears you would have realised Janet was by far the worst

The public does it all the time. Why should the judges be held to a different criteria?

I've always seen the sing-off as a swan song for whichever act doesn't go through. At that stage, it seems silly not to consider the overall body of work and potential of the acts in question.

In that case I agree with you but there were times, for example Paije vs Cher or Belle Amie vs Katie when the ones who did perform better in the singoff got voted off over "the chosen ones" regardless.

The judges would need to have their heads examined if they put Paije through over Cher. That was a case where no sing off was needed. Paije was a better singer, but Cher had the X-Factor. Given that no one has been quick to pick Paije up since he left, it's safe to say that the right decision was made.

Belle Amie was always there as fodder, and Katie was a headline generator. Of course the girls were better, but they were never going to be a serious contender to win, and Katie was providing entertainment. It was obvious they were going to keep her in it.

The Sing Off Would Actually Work If...

The judges didn't have an agenda, which is to end up with a) a marketable, money making act, and b) to preserve good ratings for the show. They do have this agenda, it's what the show is about, so it all becomes a bit redundant.

I can't think of a sing off where with this in mind I have been genuinely surprised by the result. The only time I was shocked was when Jedward stayed over Lucy (was that her name?) and I have to admit, in my horror at Jedward's lack of talent, that was because I forgot about b)

We all know why the sing-off is a stupid idea. The judges are also mentors so they are bound to be biased. Either they save their own or their favourite or they vote tactically.

It is a crap system and cannot be made fair until judge and mentor are different people.

It's pretty much just an excuse to keep the producers favourites in. If it was truly based on vocal performance then Misha would have gone weeks ago.

Nu Vibe, Sophie and Kitty would have had more time in the competition if it was only based on that performance, which it should be.